State in the Interest of Z. C.

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

22-731

STATE IN THE INTEREST OF

Z. C.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. 2021-217
HONORABLE THOMAS R. DUPLANTIER, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

SHARON DARVILLE WILSON
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, Sharon Darville Wilson, and Gary J.
Ortego, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Jane Hogan
Attorney at Law
310 North Cherry Street
Hammond, LA 70401
(985) 542-7730
COUNSEL FOR OTHER APPELLANT:
J. C. (mother)

Chantel Conrad
Regional Attorney
825 Kaliste Saloom Rd
Brandywine III, Suite 150
Lafayette, Louisiana 70508
(337) 262-2250
COUNSEL FOR OTHER APPELLEE:
Department of Children and Family Services

Jessica R. Reaux
Indigent Defenders Office
109 Stewart Street
Lafayette, Louisiana 70501
(337) 484-1001
COUNSEL FOR OTHER APPELLEE:
Q. J. S. (father)

WILSON, Judge.

In this termination case, the mother, J.C.1, appeals the judgment of the

trial court terminating parental rights to the minor child, Z.C. For the reasons

expressed below, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I.

ISSUES

In this appeal we must decide:

(1) whether the juvenile court erroneously
terminated J.C.’s parental rights because she
substantially complied with her case plan and
there is a reasonable likelihood of further
compliance in the near future;

(2) whether the juvenile court erred by finding the
State proved by clear and convincing evidence
that termination of J.C.’s parental rights was in
the best interest of Z.C.; and

(3) whether the juvenile court erred by finding that
J.C. had abandoned her child by failing to
substantially contribute to the cost of care for six
consecutive months.

II.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In January of 2021, the Lafayette Parish Department of Children and

Family Services (DCFS) received a report that J.C. had given birth to a child, E.C.2,

who tested positive for Amphetamines and Methamphetamines at birth. During the

course of its investigation, DCFS opened a case on Z.C. amid concerns that J.C.

continued to use drugs and was a victim of domestic violence. J.C. admitted she had

1
Pursuant to Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rules 5-1 and 5-2, the initials of the parties will
be used to protect and maintain the privacy of the minor child involved in this proceeding.
2
E.C. was privately adopted.

a substance abuse issue and there was ongoing domestic violence in the home from

the child’s father, Q.S. J.C. was referred to Family Services and Intensive

Homebuilder Services.

J.C. failed to follow the service providers’ recommendations and failed

to apply for a restraining order against Q.S. As a result, Z.C. was removed and

placed into the custody of the State on March 5, 2021, based on allegations of neglect

by way of drug affected newborn and dependency. J.C. stated that she was raised in

an abusive foster family and would not provide any names for potential relative

placements. Z.C. was placed with Brooke Taylor, a qualified foster home and

adoptive placement. On June 23, 2021, Z.C. was adjudicated a child in need of care.

DCFS held a family team meeting on April 29, 2021, which was

attended by J.C. At this meeting, the goal was reunification with the concurrent goal

of adoption. Each parent was given a case plan. 3 J.C.’s case plan consisted of:

• [J.C.] will maintain safe and stable housing to meet the needs of the

child. The home should have adequate food and working utilities.

• [J.C.] will be referred for an inpatient substance abuse treatment

program and will comply with all recommendations.

• [J.C.] will submit to random urine, oral, and/or hair screens.

• [J.C.] will be referred for a mental health assessment and will comply

with all recommendations and treatment as it relates to her mental

health, participate in parenting education and nurturing with Extra

3
Q.S.’s whereabouts were unknown for much of the life of the case. He was eventually
discovered to be incarcerated and had been transferred multiple times due to charges existing in
various locales. He was appointed a curator but did not actively take part in any of these
proceedings and did not work his case plan. Q.S. has not appealed the termination.

2

Mile. [J.C.] will comply with program recommendations and upon

completion provide caseworker certificate of completion.

• [J.C.] will support her child while in foster care and agree to pay $100

monthly.

• [J.C.] will participate in a gambling problem counseling and comply

with all program recommendations.

• [J.C.] will be referred and participate in a domestic violence program

for victims. [J.C.] will provide caseworker a certificate of completion.

• [J.C.] will update and inform caseworker of any significant changes or

updates that pertain to her case in a timely manner.

In the report produced by DCFS for the August 17, 2021 hearing, it is

noted that “[J.C.] continues to test positive for substances, has not had stable

housing, missed drug screens, unable to manage her income, and is unstable with

her mental health.” The report reveals J.C. had completed a 28-day inpatient

substance abuse program with Victory Addiction Center in Lafayette on May 28,

2021. She was discharged and diagnosed with Amphetamine disorder. She was

instructed to complete an intensive outpatient program (IOP), attend 90 12-step

meetings in 90 days, complete 12 steps with her sponsor, and follow up with her

doctor at the Alexandria VA. J.C. moved into sober living, but only stayed two days

before moving to the Discovery Inn Motel. J.C. relapsed on July 8, 2021, went back

the VA hospital, and tested positive for Methamphetamines and Amphetamines on

July 19, 2021.

With regards to housing, it is noted that J.C. signed a lease for a two-

bedroom apartment but had not moved in. Regarding the domestic violence and

3

parenting classes, it was noted that J.C. had completed five of her six domestic

violence classes but had missed her last two classes. She had been referred for

Nurturing Parenting and was still awaiting a start date. Regarding mental health,

J.C. was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder, Deferred Mild PTSD, OCD, Anorexia,

Traumatic Brain Injury, and Pathological Gambling. It was noted J.C. attends the

VA hospital for her mental health and the agency worker has not been able to follow

up with the VA counselor, but J.C. stated she attends all her appointments. It was

also noted that J.C. had not made any parental contributions, but she does visit the

child bi-weekly as scheduled, the visits go well, and J.C. always brings gifts for the

child.

At the February 1, 2022 permanency and case review hearing, DCFS

requested the plan goal change from reunification to adoption due to J.C.’s

Structured Decision Making (SDM) level being High. The court changed the case

plan goal to adoption.

J.C.’s progress was similar to the previous report with respect to her

continued substance abuse, lack of stable housing, failure to make parental

contributions and mental health treatment. At this point, J.C. had completed an

additional 30-days inpatient at Longleaf Treatment Facility, was participating in

outpatient programing through the VA, and was living at a sober living home in

Alexandria. Children are not permitted to live in the home. J.C. was drug screened

on October 8, and 25, 2021, and tested positive. She missed her drug screen on

November 11, 2021. J.C. started parenting courses in September 2021 but was

terminated from the course in December because she had not been compliant and

later entered her treatment at Longleaf.

4

On July 22, 2022, DCFS filed a Petition for Termination of Parental

Rights and Certification for Adoption. The petition alleged that the parents had

abandoned the child under La.Ch.Code art. 1015(5), and there has been no

substantial compliance with the case plan and there was no reasonable expectation

of significant improvement in her condition or conduct in the near future under art.

1015(6).

A permanency hearing was held August 23, 2022, and J.C.’s progress

was similar to the previous reports. J.C. had entered Longleaf for a second time due

to a relapse. She had completed the program and gone to sober living, but only

stayed briefly before moving in with her boyfriend. Because she is not on the

boyfriend’s lease, this does not classify as stable housing. She is however continuing

her VA treatment for substance abuse and mental health. The report and case review

also revealed that J.C. had completed the domestic violence and parenting classes.

Following the goal change, visitation was changed to once per month, but J.C.’s

visits continue to go well.

The termination trial was held September 12, 2022. The court

terminated J.C.’s parental rights and certified Z.C. as freed for adoption finding J.C.

had not substantially complied with her case plan. J.C. now appeals.

III.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A judgment terminating parental rights is reviewed under the manifest

error standard of review. State in the Interest of M.J.F., 18-584 (La.App. 3 Cir.

12/6/18), 261 So.3d 879.

A trial court’s factual determinations as to whether there
has been substantial compliance with a case plan, whether

5

a significant indication of reformation has been shown,
and whether the parent is likely to reform will not be set
aside unless the record reflects that the trial court is clearly
wrong.

State ex rel. G.O., 10-571, pp. 5-6 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/8/11), 68 So.3d 636, 640, writ

denied, 11-1512 (La. 7/21/11), 67 So.3d 479.

IV.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

In State in the Interest of J.A., 17-500, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1/4/18),

237 So.3d 69, 72, this court explained:

A parent has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in
establishing and maintaining a meaningful relationship
with his or her children. State in Interest of A.C., 93-1125
(La. 1/27/94), 643 So.2d 719. This parental interest
includes the “care, custody, and management of their
child.” State ex rel. J.M., 02-2089, p. 7 (La. 1/28/03), 837
So.2d 1247, 1252. Consistent with the parental interest,
the state has a legitimate interest in limiting or terminating
parental rights under certain conditions. Id. Because
termination of parental rights is a severe action, the state
bears the burden of establishing each element of a ground
for termination by clear and convincing evidence.
La.Ch.Code art. 1035; State ex rel. B.H. v. A.H., 42,864
(La.App. 2 Cir. 10/24/07), 968 So.2d 881. The statutory
grounds for involuntary termination of parental rights are
found in La.Ch.Code art. 1015, although “only one ground
need be established.” State ex rel. B.H., 968 So.2d at 885.
Once a ground for termination has been established, the
parental rights may be terminated by the trial court if it is
in the child’s best interest. Id; La.Ch.Code art. 1037.

In their petition, DCFS asserted termination based on La.Ch.Code art.

1015(5)(b) and (6). Louisiana Children’s Code Article 1015(5)(b) provides the

following ground for termination of parental rights:

Abandonment of the child by placing him in the physical
custody of a nonparent, or the department, or by otherwise
leaving him under circumstances demonstrating an
intention to permanently avoid parental responsibility by
any of the following:

6

(b) As of the time the petition is filed, the parent has failed
to provide significant contributions to the child's care and
support for any period of six consecutive months.

Louisiana Children’s Code Article 1015(6) permits termination when:

Unless sooner permitted by the court, at least one year has
elapsed since a child was removed from the parent’s
custody pursuant to a court order; there has been no
substantial parental compliance with a case plan for
services which has been previously filed by the
department and approved by the court as necessary for the
safe return of the child; and despite earlier intervention,
there is no reasonable expectation of significant
improvement in the parent’s condition or conduct in the
near future, considering the child’s age and his need for a
safe, stable, and permanent home.

Louisiana Children’s Code Article 1036(C) and (D) provides the

grounds for lack of parental compliance with a case plan, stating:

C. Under Article 1015(6), lack of parental compliance
with a case plan may be evidenced by one or more of the
following:

(1) The parent’s failure to attend court-approved
scheduled visitations with the child.

(2) The parent’s failure to communicate with the child.

(3) The parent’s failure to keep the department apprised
of the parent’s whereabouts and significant changes
affecting the parent’s ability to comply with the case plan
for services.

(4) The parent’s failure to contribute to the costs of the
child’s foster care, if ordered to do so by the court when
approving the case plan.

(5) The parent’s repeated failure to comply with the
required program of treatment and rehabilitation services
provided in the case plan.

(6) The parent’s lack of substantial improvement in
redressing the problems preventing reunification.

(7) The persistence of conditions that led to removal or
similar potentially harmful conditions.

7

(8)(a) The parent’s failure to provide a negative test result
for all synthetic or other controlled dangerous substances,
except for any drug for which the parent has lawfully
received a prescription, at the completion of a reasonable
case plan.

(b) For purposes of this Article, “controlled dangerous
substance” shall have the meaning ascribed in R.S. 40:961.

D. Under Article 1015(6), lack of any reasonable
expectation of significant improvement in the parent’s
conduct in the near future may be evidenced by one or
more of the following:

(1) Any physical or mental illness, mental deficiency,
substance abuse, or chemical dependency that renders the
parent unable or incapable of exercising parental
responsibilities without exposing the child to a substantial
risk of serious harm, based upon expert opinion or based
upon an established pattern of behavior.

(2) A pattern of repeated incarceration of the parent that
has rendered the parent unable to care for the immediate
and continuing physical or emotional needs of the child for
extended periods of time.

(3) Any other condition or conduct that reasonably
indicates that the parent is unable or unwilling to provide
an adequate permanent home for the child, based upon
expert opinion or based upon an established pattern of
behavior.

In granting the termination, the trial court stated:

Mr. James, I would agree with you that this isn’t the
typical case where somebody is not attempting to go to the
treatment and do those things. The problem that I have in
this case is the combination of the mental health and
substance abuse. And I think that the cases clearly talk
about too little too late when the Court is faced with a
situation of multiple substance abuse attempts for
treatment, none of them have been successful.

I agree I do this all the time, and certainly there are
times when seven times is not uncommon for someone to
go to treatment. But for those people who do that, they go
and there’s some hope that the mental illness it’s the

8

mental illness that’s causing me to what we call self
medicate, which is what the drugs do.

This child needs permanency, and I don’t believe
that [J.C.] has shown me that it is likely that she can
complete all aspects of the case plan. She has not had
housing. She has – the mental health is there and
confirmed. And most importantly for me, she has failed to
be able to get a handle on her substance abuse that I think
would make her parenting unsafe.

And for those reasons, the Court would sign a
judgment on presentation.

As to the father, the Court finds that the father has
failed to do any of his case plan, and the Court would
terminate his parental rights at this time.

In order to be compliant with her case plan, J.C. was required to

maintain stable housing, maintain contact with the agency, address mental health

issues, address substance abuse issues, make parental contributions, complete

parenting classes and complete domestic violence classes. J.C. failed to maintain

housing and make parental contributions. Although she brought gifts to the child

during visits, she never once made the $100 contribution payment despite receiving

over $4000 a month from the VA and SSI. Although she signed a lease in August

of 2022 shortly before the trial, that home was never assessed, and the court reports

submitted by DCFS state that J.C. understood she had to maintain housing for 6

months which she had yet to do.

Most importantly, the court found J.C. failed to get a handle on her

substance abuse and mental health issues. The court noted that J.C. had been trying.

However, despite multiple attempts at rehab, J.C. has been unable to maintain

sobriety. She tested positive for drugs shortly before the termination trial and

admitted she hadn’t been taking her prescribed medication. The court also found

that despite her continued treatment with the VA, J.C had ongoing mental health

9

issues that created her substance abuse problems. Based on her pattern of relapsing

and failing to change the behavior that led to the child’s removal in the first place,

we find that the trial court was not manifestly erroneous in finding that DCFS proved

by clear and convincing evidence that J.C. failed to comply with her case plan and

was unlikely to improve in the near future.

Z.C. was in an adoptive placement and had been with the same family

since her removal. She was doing well there and had formed bonds with the family.

Z.C. had spent half her life with her foster family. Given her young age and the need

for permanency, the trial also did not err in finding that termination was in the best

interest of the child.

On appeal, J.C. also argues the trial court erred by finding that DCFS

proved abandonment under La.Ch.Code art. 1015(5) by clear and convincing

evidence. Although the trial court never mentions abandonment in its oral ruling,

the written judgment states that DCFS had met its burden under La.Ch.Code art.

1015(5) and that J.C. had failed to make parental contributions for a period of six

months. The article clearly states that failure to provide significant contributions for

six consecutive months is a circumstance demonstrating an intention to permanently

avoid parental responsibility. J.C.’s case plan included a monthly parental

contribution of $100. It is undisputed that J.C. failed to make any parental

contributions during the pendency of her case despite having significant income.

Although the record reveals that she always brought gifts for the child to her visits,

there is not any evidence of the substance or value of these gifts. Based on the

record, we find no manifest error in the trial court’s determination that these gifts

did not amount to significant support.

10

V.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court ordering the

termination of parental rights to the minor child Z.C. is affirmed. All costs of this

appeal are assessed against the appellant.

AFFIRMED.

THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION.
Rule 2-16.3 Uniform Rules, Court of Appeal.

11